Providence Washington Ins. v. Bradley Fertilizer Co.

33 F. 685, 1888 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7
District Court, D. Rhode Island·Decided February 13, 1888·Published

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

I shall not refer to the evidence further than to say that I find as a fact, for the purposes of this case, that there is a custom in the trade to carry oil in barrels on deck, in coasting voyages, when the under-deck cargo consists of fish-scrap, and that the defendant is chargeable with knowledge of this custom. The question, then, is whether the existence of this custom is to be held to impose a liability to contribute on the under-deck cargo. After mature consideration I am [687] satisfied that it cannot be so held. I see no consideration moving to the shippers of the under-deck cargo which could furnish an equitable ground for the imposition of increased liability on them. Where a custom-exists, as in this case, to-carry a particular kind of goods on deck under particular circumstances I think the shippers of under-deck cargo might be so far affected as that they could not maintain any claim for the increased risk resulting from such shipment. But I can see no reason why their rights and liabilities should be otherwise affected. There will be a decree dismissing the libel, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Providence Washington Ins. v. Bradley Fertilizer Co., 33 F. 685, 1888 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7 (D.R.I. 1888).

33 F. 685 (Providence Washington Ins. v. Bradley Fertilizer Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.